Translational Imaging of the Brain in the Twentieth Century: Patterns and Trends in EEG, CT, and MRI devices

在人文科学和社会科学中，已经有了一种“神经批评”的趋势，即分析围绕神经科学的话语和辩论并将其问题化为问题(Cooter 2014；Chodhury&Slaby，2012)。这种“神经批评”避免了未来主义，相反，它认为神经科学是处于文化和政治经济力量网络中的历史企业(Chodhury&Slaby，2012；Scott Vrecko，2010)。我通过对20世纪神经科学转化研究的历史研究来建立这一论述。目标和研究问题：转化研究被定义为发展基础研究的目标，从基础研究中衍生出治疗和诊断益处的创新(Brosan&Michael，2014)。我追随神经批评的当前趋势，将翻译研究置于历史背景下。是什么历史条件使当前的翻译研究文化成为可能？以前的翻译研究模式有没有取得切实的成果？是否有一个概念上的基础贯穿于翻译研究的各种模式？我们将研究3种通过图形表示来测量、定义和诊断大脑生理和生物功能的技术的背景：脑电(EEG)、计算机断层扫描(CT)和核磁共振成像(MRI)。这种对神经成像的关注允许建立一个模型，展示此类技术的演变以及围绕这些技术构建的翻译实践。研究框架：根据不同的和很少被研究的档案，将展示每项技术是如何被设想和应用于基础研究的。使用这些和医学研究委员会的记录，我检查了基础研究是如何转化为临床政策的。Burden神经研究所的论文将成为探索1940-60年代EEG研究的基础(Burd，以及Isherwood在20世纪70年代的CT研究和70-80年代后期的MRI研究的论文，其中也将使用Brian Worthington(PBW)和Peter Mansfield(PMP)的论文。文献综述：Borck(2012)指出了当代神经科学话语中缺乏合适的模型。以前的思维模型和隐喻已经定义和塑造了神经科学活动，而当代的神经成像已经成为神经科学话语的“媒介和信息”(Borck 2012,129)。神经影像是一种自我证明的理由，因此很难加以批判。(博克2012年；库特2014年)。这允许机动性和解释灵活性，允许关于神经元的结论通常超出EEG、CT和MRI能够准确测量的范围(Dumit 2004；Borck 2016)。定义一个清晰轮廓的神经科学大脑模型将打开一个合作的空间。方法论：建立在Hking的“校准/验证”思想(1995，第98-99页)的基础上，为研究规划提供了一个概念性基础。在这个模型中，测量或量化现象的新技术通常会经历一个过程，在这个过程中，它们会与先前建立的判断、测量或实验结果进行核对。通过这个镜头观察神经科学有助于显示神经成像是根据什么判断进行校准的。通过这样做，翻译研究中使用的大脑类别可以用坚实的边界更清晰地勾勒出来。然后可以使用黑客的“分类循环”来扩展这一过程；这是一个新的神经科学家在它们被接受后与它们互动的过程(Chodhury&Slaby，2012，第8页)。除了突出神经科学领域工作实践的遗产，如转化性研究，循环模型也是从公认的神经科学研究的类别和方法推导出当前神经科学模型的起点。

There has been a move within the humanities and social sciences towards a 'neuro-criticism', to analyse and problematize the discourse and debates surrounding the neurosciences (Cooter 2014; Chodhury & Slaby, 2012). This 'neuro-criticism' avoids futurism, instead arguing that the neurosciences are a historically-situated enterprise contextualised in a web of cultural and political-economic forces (Chodhury & Slaby, 2012; Scott Vrecko, 2010). I build upon this discourse through a historical study of neuroscientific translational research in the 1900s.Objectives and Research Questions:Translational research is defined as the aim to develop basic research from which innovations of therapeutic and diagnostic benefit are derived (Brosnan & Michael, 2014). I follow current trends in neuro-criticism to ground translational research in a historical context. What are the historical conditions that have made the current culture of translational research possible? Have prior models of translational research had a tangible result? Is there a conceptual underpinning that runs through the various models of translational research?The context of 3 technologies that have been used to measure, define, and diagnose physiological and biological functions of the brain via graphical representation will be studied: Electroencephalographs (EEG), Computerised Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This focus on neuroimaging allows for a model that shows the evolution of such technologies and the translational practices that were structured around them. Research Framework:Drawing on distinct and little studied archives will show how each technology was envisioned and used in basic research. Using these and the records of the Medical Research Council, I examine how basic research was translated into clinical policy.The papers of the Burden Neurological Institute will be the basis to explore EEG research in the 1940-60s (BURD, and the Isherwood papers for both CT Research in the 1970s and MRI research in the late 1970s-80s, for which the papers of Brian Worthington (PBW) and Peter Mansfield (PMP) will also be used.Literature Review:The lack of an appropriate model in contemporary neuroscientific discourse is noted by Borck (2012). Whereas prior models and metaphors of mind had defined and shaped neuroscientific activities, contemporary neuroimaging has become the 'medium and message' (Borck 2012, 129) of neuroscientific discourse. Neuro images are a self-supporting justification of themselves, making them difficult to critique. (Borck 2012; Cooter 2014). This allows for a mobility and interpretive flexibility that allows for conclusions regarding the neuro that often go beyond what EEG, CT, and MRI are capable of accurately measuring (Dumit 2004; Borck 2016). Defining a clearly outlined model of the neuroscientific brain will open a collaborative space.Methodology:Building on Hacking's ideas of "calibration/validation" (1995, pp. 98-99) provides a conceptual basis for the research planning. In this model, new technologies that measure or quantify a phenomenon, typically undergoes a process where they are checked against previously established judgements, measurements or experimental results. Viewing neuroscience through this lens helps to show what judgements neuroimaging has been calibrated against. In doing so, the categories of brain used in translational research can be more clearly outlined with solid boundaries. This can then be extended using Hacking's "classificatory looping"; a process by which new neuroscientists interact with the categories after they have become accepted (Chodhury & Slaby 2012, p. 8). As well as highlighting the legacy of working practices in areas of the neuroscience, such as translational research, the model of looping is a starting point from which to derive the current neuroscientific model from the accepted categories and methods of neuroscientific investigation.